Serpent God Statue

Matthew Downie's page

6,971 posts (6,986 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 6,971 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The situation described is:

(if I can get it to line up


Where C is a large creature and A & B are allies fighting it.
This does not get flanking because a line from the centre of A to the centre of B does not go through opposite borders. If North is up, the line goes from A through the South side of C and then through the East side of C and then into B.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Cancel each out is cancel each out : no effect. Hence the reroll.

But a reroll is an effect.

Kayerloth wrote:
I don't believe it increases player choice

Of course not. It's supposed to create a situation where instead of being able to create whatever you want, you have to improvise within a set of very limited options.

Kayerloth wrote:
or decreases power gaming tendencies and you'd have a very hard time convincing me otherwise.

It probably drives out power gamers in advance. What self-respecting munchkin is going to want to play a PC with no stat above a 12?

Anyway, what's wrong with optimizing PCs? The only problems with it are (a) disparity within the group and (b) it throws off the CR system and the difficulty of published adventures. And in an all-3d6 campaign, both those problems are going to happen anyway!

MrCharisma wrote:

1+1+3= 5 STR

3+6+3= 12 DEX
2+1+2= 5 CON
5+6+3= 14 INT
2+2+2= 6 WIS
4+3+3= 10 CHA

Looks like an Elf Wizard to me (the CON's already bad enough that the penalty won't matter).

That wouldn't have occurred to me, but you're probably right.

Can a CON 3 wizard still gain 3HP per level with Toughness and Favored Class Bonus?

zaphod77 wrote:
It says that immediate actions (not even swift ones) can be cast during falling.

...and that then it immediately says that they need a concentration check.

zaphod77 wrote:
And it seems silly that immediate actions can require a concentration check. especially when there are no somatic or material components...

When there are no components, the only thing a spell requires is mental concentration. It seems silly to me that immediate actions wouldn't require concentration checks when that's nowhere in the rules. It's established that interrupts can be interrupted, as when you use a Readied Action to fire an arrow to force a concentration check on a spell that might itself have been a readied or immediate action...

zaphod77 wrote:
Is "Bull rush the flat footed wizard into the pit to his death because he has low hp and can't cast feather fall while flat footed" intended to work?!?!

We don't know what's intended. We're not psychic, and Paizo aren't answering a lot of FAQs.

It seems a reasonable thing to allow a martial to do. Getting a wizard low on HP, making him flat footed and shoving him into a pit is a pretty difficult. Killing him with a sword while he's flat footed and low on HP is a lot easier.

Claxon wrote:
the spell doesn't work if there is a concentration check to cast it due to falling, in which case the spell would have little purpose.

Why are you trying to cast Feather Fall on yourself? That's like saying Remove Paralysis is useless if you can't cast it while paralysed.

You're the wizard, not the guy whose job it is to lead the way and trigger the concealed pit traps. The whole purpose of them specifying that it require a concentration check is that it's a spell with the intended use of protecting your allies when you see them fall. It's called teamwork!

(Honestly, I'd allow someone to cast it on themselves 'before they start falling', I just don't think it's as obvious as most people say...)

Claxon wrote:
I believe somewhere there's an FAQ where they said Feather Fall didn't require a concentration check to cast from falling

I believe that there is no such FAQ, but I don't know how to prove it.

It's metagaming if you say, "Well, it doesn't matter if I leave the group to do my own thing for a while, because the GM will know I'm not there and reduce the number of opponents to balance things out."

It's not metagaming to say, "I'm not going to walk out on these guys because they might get outnumbered and die without my aid." That's how real-life battles work. Numbers matter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skerek wrote:
It doesn't make sense for copper to be worth more than iron when iron is more useful.

Are you under the impression that gold coins are worth more than silver and copper because of how useful gold is as a metal?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Opuk0 wrote:
My thought process is that, even a LG Deity like Iomedae doesn't expect or want their paladins to be judge jury and executioner.

That's not an opinion everyone's going to share. Who better than a Paladin to do those jobs?

Half the appeal of having adventures set in fantasy lands is that we're not in a modern civilised society. We have to decide for ourselves what's right and wrong, who lives and who dies; we don't demand lawful good PCs say, "Even though this red dragon burned down a village, it is an intelligent being, and entitled to the full protection of the law. If we used nonlethal damage on it, we'd be no better than the evil we fight. Let us bring it in for a fair trial."

If your conception of the tieflings is that they're neutral mercenaries who have been unfairly judged for their appearances, and you want the paladin player to understand this, then you can try to present it as a clear moral dilemma:

Player: "I run down the fleeing tieflings like the dogs they are."
GM: "Seeing your steed is too fast for them to outrun, they cast down their weapons and throw themselves at your feet, begging for mercy."
Player: "Mercy? When did you ever show mercy to the innocent?"
GM: The tiefling says. "Gah. You're just like all the others... Go on then. Just finish it." He bows his head down before you, awaiting the killing blow.
Player: "I Detect Evil."
GM: "You don't sense evil."
Player: "Sense Motive. 17."
GM: "You sense only despair. Some of the town watch arrives. 'You have prisoners?' says the sergeant."
Player: "Yeah, fine. Prisoners."
GM: "The weeping tieflings thank you as they're dragged away in chains."

Opuk0 wrote:
At the end of the battle, the paladin wanted to 'run down the tieflings like the dogs they are', my words. I thought this was a little bit overkill and told them that Iomedae was raising an eyebrow at them for wanting to cut down a fleeing opponent who'd clearly given up the fight.

An unreasonable GM would just say, "You fall!" You don't seem to be one of them, but this is another of those regular mercy-versus-punishment ethical dilemmas that creates endless paladin threads; it's not safe to assume you'll be on the same page as the rest of the table.

Iomedae isn't a particularly merciful deity. "I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest."

What information did you convey about the tieflings? Do they seem like ruthless killers who will strike again if the party give them a chance to escape? Did you do anything to humanise them?

Insight wrote:
I find it best to use the following analogue to our own economy: a copper piece is equivalent to $1, a silver piece is $10, and a gold piece is $100.

That's the standard I used for PF1. Mundane items like candles mostly made sense using a $1 = 1cp exchange rate.

It only stops making sense when peasants try to give adventurers level-appropriate quest rewards ("Please find my missing pig! I'll give you this magic sword that is worth a hundred pigs!"), or when people get addicted to drugs that they can't possibly afford.

Does PF2 have ten-dollar copper pieces? That makes the mundane economy less sensible. "How much for a pint of beer?" "Ten dollars." "How about half a pint?" "Ten dollars."

It also helps that I assume a lower level of wealth disparity in my campaign than the real world

In PF1 you can supposedly hire unskilled workers for 1sp per day. That's pretty bad wealth disparity compared to anyone with a Profession skill.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd tip my bag of holding into his bag of holding. Though dumping 18 pints of platinum onto a countertop sounds fun too.

But this isn't a normal transaction; I don't suppose many people in our world would buy a $20 million dollar passenger jet with sackfuls of cash.

Claxon wrote:
If the PCs can catch an enemy party off guard and wipe them out or almost wipe them out with readied actions then the same thing should happen to the PCs. Which isn't fun.

If the PCs are surprised and held at gunpoint at close range, having rules that make surrendering the most sensible course of action doesn't sound too bad.

Derklord wrote:
Note that most of these abilities also increase attack rolls, which is a big part of what makes them better (and can work as an additional damage bonus via Power Attack).

Note that Power Attack is also an ability that provides a damage bonus that scales with level. Not technically a class ability, but an ability that certain classes (those with decent attack bonuses) are good at using.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JackieLane wrote:
Carrying enough gold pieces (or even platinum) to buy some of the magic items would be absurd with PF1 costs.

If you've got the 400lbs of platinum coins for a Mirror of Life Trapping, you can probably afford the Bag of Holding to carry them in.

Azothath wrote:
it is a standard action to activate the ring and create another shield[force]

Even when it says this?

It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Honestly, I'm not sure I could effectively play PF1 with a paper sheet these days. It's just so complex, having auto-adding of all the various bonuses from everywhere is an absolute life-saver.

If I felt like that I'd want to switch to another system.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm sort of concerned that I'm going to be left behind when this hobby goes overly digital, to be honest.

My experience of technological progress from my last campaign:

(a) I like checking rules through Google. I can type what I'm looking for a lot quicker than I can look something up in an index.
(b) I like having PCs and NPCs on paper. That way I can see everything at once, and annotate anything I want.
(c) I don't like it when other players have their characters on their phones. Staring at your phone during a game conveys an impression of disengagement, like yawning and looking at your watch.

Is this a sign of me being old, I wonder?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about a poorly worded Wish?
"I wish to be better than all my enemies!"

Yqatuba wrote:
Maybe it should heal two targets or have a range of Close rather than a fixed distance.

Or it could be a swift action to cast.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
This really leaves me to wonder whether fail forward is a GM tool or an adventure design tool? As an adventure design tool, it seems like making sure that there is always another path towards the players goal is just good design principles.

True, but there's a difference between 'fail and you have to find another path' and 'fail and the other path finds you'. The latter is 'fail forwards'. The former is what I called 'fail sideways'.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Technotrooper wrote:
I'm not sure why they asked him to stop. He was doing a pretty good job of creating hype and excitement without giving away too much.

They'd probably prefer to create excitement by selectively releasing information themselves, rather than trust the judgement of a random fan who might take it too far.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:
It seems many GMs do tell their player DCs, and I think for those GMs it would absolutely not make sense to use Fail Forward since the players would know it was used and that would be bad for verisimilitude.

That only applies to a particular type of Fail Forwards, the 'fudge it and move on' kind.

One of the classic ways of doing it goes something like this:

Make some social checks to gather information about your enemies. If you succeed, you find out where their base is. If you fail, you attract too much attention. Your enemies send out a squad of assassins to kill you. If you defeat the assassins, you find a clue on the body of one of the assassins to lead you to the next part of the story.

Your actions and abilities have had consequences, and the story doesn't grind to a halt just because you rolled badly. And it works even if the players know the DC for the social skill checks.

Yqatuba wrote:

None of those quite fit what I'm looking for so I guess I'll make my own for you to evaluate:

Soul Sacrifice
School: Necromancy (healing) [Good] Level: Cleric/Oracle 2/ Pal 2/ Witch 2
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S
Range: 30 ft
Target: One creature
Saving Throw: none Spell Resistance: yes (harmless)

You suffer 2d8+1 damage per caster level (maximum +10) and the target is healed for the same amount of damage you took. This spell has no effect on undead.

A spell that heals no more than Cure Moderate Wounds while also hurting the caster? I guess the range is a slight compensation but it still seems like a pretty masochistic choice.

Maybe it could heal two targets simultaneously?

Dave Justus wrote:
Personally I'd evaluate that as more a 1st level spell than a 2nd.

This raises the amusing possibility of a healthy level 1 PC casting it, falling to negative HP, and needing immediate healing themselves.

There's a reason why a startlingly high proportion of popular fictional were orphaned at an early age (e.g. Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Tarzan, Luke Skywalker, most Disney protagonists) or otherwise come from a tragic background. It gets us on their side right from the start. Anything they achieve is all the more impressive because of where they started from.

You can make a sympathetic interesting character without a tragic background, but it's a lot more work.

Shield Other is similar.

Temperans wrote:
The biggest problem is probably the weight of the item potentially skyrocketing.

Am I right in thinking there are still no rules for weights of huge+ weapons?

Assuming it doubles every weight class:
Medium Butchering Axe: 25lbs, 3d6 damage
Large: 50lbs, 4d6 damage
Huge: 100lbs, 6d6 damage
Gargantuan: 200lbs, 8d6 damage
Colossal: 400lbs, 12d6 damage

That's possible with Ant Haul or similar. Of course in most cases you wouldn't actually want a weapon that big; instead you'd get a damage dice increase from something like Lead Blades which, despite its name, doesn't make the weapon harder to carry.

Tzakkesh wrote:
Just how much can the appearances of the races be played around with before it just isn't the same setting?

Are you under the impression that all official Pathfinder elves are blond and blue eyed?

If I'm playing in a setting, I try to be as true to the setting as possible. There's lots of good art provided with the game; I don't want to have to throw all that away.

But I don't have a problem with making up a setting that just happens to be pretty similar to Golarion while differing where I need it to.

thistledown wrote:
The other big con to the butchering axe is you can only get it through one scenario

Presumably that's just a PFS restriction?

Slyme wrote:
According to this FAQ you can only crit on things that deal hit point damage. So no crit's on ability points, levels, etc.

Did you mean this:

Which is at least somewhat relevant?

Bonus Dice: Do bonus dice from Channel Smite or spells such as elemental touch or flame arrow multiply on a critical hit?

No. Core Rulebook page 179 states in the Multiplying Damage section: "Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied."
The general rule is the only dice you multiply on a critical hit are the actual dice from the basic weapon (d8 for a longsword, 2d6 for a greatsword, and so on).

The "If a spell causes ability damage or drain, the damage or drain is doubled on a critical hit" rule takes precedence over that.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Fail forward removes all player agency. It says “no matter how much you mess up we WILL reach that predetermined outcome because nothing you do matters.”

I don't think the problem with "fail forwards" is anything to do with Player Agency.

The first definition of player agency I found on Google:


1 The player has control over their own character's decisions.

2 Those decisions have consequences within the game world.
3 The player has enough information to anticipate what those consequences might be before making them.

By this definition, it sounds like a game where players had a 100% chance of success at everything would have more agency than one run the traditional D&D way.

If every time you try to pick a lock the door opens somehow, that's agency: you choose what to do, and consequences.

Loss of player agency is when you decide not to try to open the door, so the GM conspires open it for you.

What excessive or clumsy fail-forwards harms is (a) Dice Agency (the idea that the number on the dice matters, without which dice rolls have no tension) or (b) plausibility. Because in real life sometimes you try something and nothing happens.

Is there a term for when you try something, it fails, and so you have to think of something else? "Fail sideways," maybe?

For example, I try to talk the guard into letting me in. I fail a Diplomacy check. I try bribing him. I fail another Diplomacy check. He threatens to arrest me. I succeed at a Diplomacy check and he lets me go.

I have achieved nothing. The story has not moved forwards. But now I have to consider a plan B. Cast Charm Person. Wait until nightfall and sneak in. Create a distraction to lure the guard away. Look for a back door. Climb in through a window. Murder the guard. Kidnap his family. Rub your magic lamp and use up one of your three wishes.

A universal Fail Forwards mechanic could mean that you'd never have to stop and think of a plan B, because when you either succeed at plan A, or the situation changes (eg you are arrested and brought inside) so that the plan B is irrelevant.

I'll try and make an exhaustive list of types of failure results, just for completeness:
(1) Fail forwards with no meaningful consequences. (You fail to pick the lock, but the door just drops off its hinges.)
(2) Fail forwards with meaningful consequences. (You fail to pick the lock, but this triggers a trap and the entire door explodes, hurting you. If you survive you can proceed.)
(3) Fail sideways. (You fail to pick the lock, but you could now choose to bash the door down or look for another way to proceed.)
(4) Fail repeatedly. (You can keep trying to pick the lock until you get a natural 20.)
(5) Fail catastrophically. (You try to pick the lock; this triggers an alarm. A massive number of guards are approaching. You must abandon your mission and flee for your life as a fugitive.)

Anything I'm missing?

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Jason Buhlman Podcast wrote:

(not a direct transcript)

Jason: Finding the Hydra is going to be really hard. What do you do?
Player: Can I use survival?
Jason: That is exactly how you would do it.
Player: Great. I get a 27.
Jason: That's enough. Although we have a new mechanic called the fail forward mechanic. Had you failed, I would have still let you find the hydra.
Nerdologists Blog wrote:
Failing forward is the idea that you still get to unlock the door on a failed roll, but it comes at a cost.
Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition Dungeon Master's Guide 2 wrote:
Eventually, a dead branch will stump you. You just can’t imagine a consequence of failure that takes the story anywhere fun or interesting. In this case, allow the players an automatic success. Either secretly set the DC of the check to 1, or drop the pretense and tell the players that they overcome the obstacle without resorting to a die roll. If this easy success feels like a lapse in story logic, describe a fortuitous event that makes the obstacle suddenly surmountable.

I think we can all agree that these use the "fail forward" mechanic in the same way, right?

I find them to be subtly different.

The Jason 'quote' is bad because he doesn't specify any consequences for the failure. A game where if you fail your survival rolls, the hydra eventually finds and ambushes you would be 'fail forwards' with meaningful consequences. Perhaps that's what he meant, but he didn't say it.

Then again, it's only a (not necessarily accurate) transcript of someone talking off the top of their head. Those are rarely good for precisely defining gaming terms.

"you still get to unlock the door on a failed roll, but it comes at a cost" is also a weak definition. For example, if someone with zero lock-picking skills attempts to unlock a well-made door, "you pick the lock the door but Something Bad Happens" is a fail forwards that breaks verisimilitude and fails to specify any plausible bad consequences.
A better fail forwards would be "the guards inside hear you and open the door to find out what's going on and now you've lost the element of surprise".

The "if you just can’t imagine a consequence of failure that takes the story anywhere fun or interesting, just let them succeed somehow" is saying to only do this as a last resort where the alternative is the campaign grinding to a halt. I don't know if anyone defines "fail forwards" in this way.

It could be useful for escaping from a powerful enemy (or to buy some time to drink a potion).

Or to reduce the number of people who are attacking you. It depends to some extent on the relative numbers in the battle: if the time flayers outnumber the party, they could send all but one of the party into the future, then gang up on the last remaining PC and take him down before the rest of the party return.

Readying an action to attack someone when they reappear should also be possible.

LordKailas wrote:

Well, confusion states

Confusion wrote:
Attacks nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject’s self)

There is a creature adjacent to my gnome fire wizard. I have a bastard sword in hand (its my arcane bond) which my character crafted themselves (meaning they are proficient with it thanks to my gnome racial trait master tinker).

If I'm being forced to attack the nearest creature I'm not sure that it makes sense to do anything but attack with my sword.

As the DM what would you have the character do instead in that scenario?

I only allow characters to perform basic weapon attacks while confused. It feels wrong to me to let someone cast complicated spells when they're too confused to tell friend from foe.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
It'll be more than that, because extrapolation beyond 19 assumes a continued geometric increase in cost at each even level (11>12=1pt, 13>14=2pts, 15>16=3pts, 17>18=4pts, so 19>20 should be 5pts, 21>22=6pts, etc).

So, assuming differential between steps = (stat - 10) / 2 rounded down, increasing your strength from 400 to 401 will cost another 195 on what you already spent. (Which seems expensive, considering that ability modifiers don't even increase on odd numbered stats; poor optimization, Supes!)

We're looking to sum the series:
1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3... 193, 193, 194, 194, 195, 195
I notice that 1+1+195+195 is 392, and 2+2+194+194 is also 392, and so on. This is a repeating pattern that we can use to simply the calculation.
In the middle we will have ..97, 97, 98, 98, 99, 99...
Where 97+97+99+99 is also 392. We will have to make a special case for 98+98 and the 196 at the end.
So the answer is 392 * (194/2) + 98 + 98
I make it 38,220 points.

Making the optimistic assumption that point-buy cost increases steadily beyond the given table (ie, STR 18 costs 17, STR 19 costs 21, STR 20 costs 25, STR 21 costs 29, etc) that would cost 1549 points or so.
You'd probably want to spend about the same on DEX and CON to get superspeed and nigh invulnerability. I guess you'd have to find the points by dumping Wisdom or something...

Reksew_Trebla wrote:
He clearly used BAB to define the difference between Superman and Batman.

The full quote:


If Superman is a Paladin and Wonder woman is a Barbarian, then Batman's ability to give and take damage in a melee is significantly less than a wizards 1/2 BAB and 1d6 HP.

Frame of reference is key.

When someone says 'The want to be Batman' the key is to zero in what that means to them. If it turns out they want to play someone who can figure things out, has abilities that can provide solutions for nearly every problem and counts on being prepared rather than just physical might, then wizard is a pretty good option.

So, he's trying to deal with the (largely impossible) question 'What are the best classes to choose if we want to make a PC group within the normal rules of Pathfinder that is analogous to the Justice League?'

And what then said was that BAB cannot define the difference between Superman and Batman, because the difference in damage output and resilience of Superman versus Batman is far greater than the difference in damage output and resilience of a Paladin against a Wizard.

And then he goes on to point out that the question needs clarifying, because what aspects of Batman and Superman are we trying to simulate? Dude with human limitations versus dude without human limitations? Dude who has to use his brain against dude who can solve most problems with his fists and unbreakable skin?

Air Bubble allows you to, for example, light a small fire underwater, or cry, depending on your definition of 'underwater'.
(Life bubble is similar but higher level.)

Excaliburproxy wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
I'd say it'd be closer to 5.5e
I don't buy that. 5e is the DnD game with no feats (I know there are feats but they are usually a very suboptimal choice and they come rarely) and PF2E is the game where everything is a feat.

I agree with most of that, but disagree that 5e feats are bad choices. Some examples:



Whenever you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, its speed drops to 0 for the rest of the turn. This stops any movement they may have been taking.
Creatures within your reach provoke opportunity attacks even if they took the Disengage action.
When a creature within your reach makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.

Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
Your ranged weapons ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
Before you make a ranged attack with a ranged weapon with which you are proficient, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If you do so and the attack hits, it deals +10 damage.

Shield Master
You gain the following benefits while wielding a shield:
If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to Shove a creature within 5 feet of you using your shield.
If you aren't incapacitated, you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity save made against a spell or other effect that affects only you.
If you are subjected to an effect which allows you to make a Dexterity save for half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage, interposing you shield between you and the effect.

Any of these things would be at least three feats in a Pathfinder game, if they were allowed at all.

Looking at it some more, I think you're right about RAI.

Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC. When a Large creature (which normally takes up 4 squares) squeezes into a space that's 1 square wide, the creature's miniature figure occupies 2 squares, centered on the line between the 2 squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into. A creature can squeeze past a creature while moving but it can't end its movement in an occupied square.

The last sentence is either declaring all movement past a creature to be squeezing, or it's saying that narrow spaces do not prevent moving past other creatures; eg, two ogres can pass one another in a 5 foot corridor. If it's the latter, it's a weird way of saying it.

But if it's the former, that means that passing through an ally not only gives you -4 to AC, it also makes it act as difficult terrain. And nothing else indicates that passing through an ally is difficult terrain, so that seems unlikely... Unless 'moving through a narrow space' is different from 'squeezing', since the two are listed separately in the first sentence.

zza ni wrote:
yes so much hampered that unless they have spacial abilities (ratfolk swarming etc) they CAN'T stay there together and fight.

I suspect that's mostly because, when playing with miniatures, having two PCs in the same space is really inconvenient.

"You can choose to end your turn in the same space as an ally but you both take Squeeze penalties," would be more realistic rule than "You can't fit two people in a space that could take about nine people in real life", but would be pretty awkward to represent on the map.

zza ni wrote:

also to the op. it's hard to tell from the picture but the:

"he provokes two attacks of opportunity" .should only be if two enemies threat the area he leaves. remember that moving doesn't provoke more then once from each enemy no matter how many threatened 5 ft spaces you leave with the same movement.

I'm pretty sure he provoked from both enemies simultaneously.

Bill Dunn wrote:
Do you think the creatures involved actually fill the space they're allotted? Humans aren't 5' x 5' x 5' cubes of flesh. Nor should anyone assume that a creature absolutely fills its space (with the possible exception of a gelatinous cube). The spaces allocated by the size rules are convenient abstractions intended to allow the creature in it room to fight and defend themselves in an unhindered manner (squeeze into a smaller space and your combat abilities are hampered...)

Which presumably means that if two humanoid allies are (temporarily) standing in the same 5x5x5 space, their combat and defensive abilities are hampered.

The 'Jade Regent' campaign has lots of Japanese stuff in it (especially in the last couple of books). I believe most of the creatures ended up in Pathfinder Bestiary 3.

Adjoint wrote:
I don't think there exist a weapon that a great slab of stone would mimic.

Nearest I could find:

Light trebuchet: These Large siege engines typically hurl large stones indirectly at a target (targeting DC 15). A light trebuchet’s ammunition scatters on contact, dealing full damage to the target square and half its damage to creatures and objects within 5 feet of the target square (creatures can make a DC 15 Reflex save to halve the damage again). Light trebuchets have a hardness of 5 and 50 hit points. One use of light trebuchet stones costs 15 gp and weighs 60 pounds.

Squeezing rules wrote:
A creature can squeeze past a creature while moving

Seems like this specifically says you're treated as squeezing.

I don't think another part of the rules not saying you're treated as squeezing should take precedence.

Not very well written rules, though.

As GM I would have at least warned the player that this was going to be my ruling and given him a chance to alter his plans...

bbangerter wrote:
If I have a non-humanoid creature with paladin class levels (say a gold dragon, or a unicorn for example), would said creature be able to use the lay on hands ability?

RAW, no. RAI, probably yes.

For example, it has been observed that various creatures without arms (like Nagas) have caster levels, which seems like it makes it illegal for them to cast spells with somatic or material components. It is fairly clear that the intention is that they can substitute other body parts for hands in these situations.

Merellin wrote:
So having a living family and friends, Is a worse backstory then the classic "I'm an orphan who have no family or friends and no attachment to anyone in the world"? How does that work? How does having a living family and friends give less plothooks then having nobody at all?

How did the orphans lose their friends and family? Each one is a potential plot hook.

Living family are also good plot hooks, but how good is roughly proportional to the tragedy in your lives. If your parents were cheated out of their inheritance, or they were bandits and you refused to work with them and fled, or they are being held hostage until you can raise a ransom, or they tried to sacrifice you to a demon, or they're dying from an ancient curse, or they tried to force you to marry for political gain, or they have a legacy that is so great your PC feels like he can't possibly live up to it, that's somewhat interesting.

If they are happy and healthy and working in a temple and you get on great, then they're really only good for being held hostage by the monster of the week. And that's also a cliche.

KingGramJohnson wrote:
He was a rich noble boy who revered the Iomedae and wanted to serve her. He left his noble house to join the paladin order. His family remained alive and well.

The problem with backstories without tragedy: for the most part they aren't memorable, they don't generate sympathy for the character, nor do they set up plot hooks.

You can still make a non-tragic character with interesting motivations or an unusual personality, of course. But "non-tragic backstory" and "I didn't bother to write a backstory" are usually pretty similar from the viewpoint of the other players.

It would be a reasonable house rule. It might not even need to target only swarms. Maybe any creature can trample any other creature providing it at least 15 feet movement speed, something resembling feet, and there is a size different of at least three categories.

It probably shouldn't be as good as a creature with the actual Trample ability; maybe it needs a combat maneuver roll, and inflicts base damage of 1d6 + Str modifier, damage dice increased or decreased with creature size. Provokes AoO if you would provoke AoO for Overrun. Reflex save for half (DC = 10 + 1/2 the trampler’s HD + Str modifier). Multiplied by 1.5 for swarms, as it's area-effect damage.

Of course, this would mean that any Huge creature would gain the ability to trample gnomes and halflings.

1 to 50 of 6,971 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>